VARIOUS OPINIONS ON THE QUESTION OF PEERAGE REFORM.

Mr.. B .,s•rs of Leeds has a plan for reforming the House of

Lords, which, one cannot help thinking, must have been suggested to him by Mr. ATTWOOD of Birmingham.

" The state of political parties is at present very embarrassing. We have in the Muse of Commons an assembly, chosen under a Tory Ministry, very well disposed to listen to and support all the measures that are introduced by a Liberal Administration. They have what is called a fair Working majority— a majority capable of carrying through their measures with tolerably good suc- cess; hut, when those measures come into the House of Lords, they have to encounter very serious and often insurmountable difficulties, and those diffi- culties lead to the sacrifices of which toy honourable friend has spoken. At the same time, I must say, that 1 was certainly much gratified at the manly declaration made by the honourable baronet, my excellent friend, that he does not think that we are conic to that pass that we need to have any organic change in the Constitution—the People having the power in their own hands to remedy the existing evil. Because, gentlemen, what is our situation as to the differences between the House of Lords and the house of Commons? Have we not seen measures carried decidedly more important than any that remain to be settled ? Have we not seen in spite of the house of Lords, when Me People have spoken out, and boldly declared their opinions, measures to which they were as determinately and as violently opposed as to the measures the loss of which we have now to deplore, carried into a law, and the people now receiv- ing the full benefit of those measures? There sits on my right an honourable friend of mine (Mr. Gaskell), who represents a borough which, on one occa- sion, presented a scene such as it was the glory of .E zglishmen to witness. We do not wish to see such scenes every (lay; but when the People were de- termined that Me great measure of Parliamentary Reform should be carried, Mat measure was achieved, and that without any alteration in the House of Lords."—Leeds Mercury; Speech of Mr. RAISES at the Mayor's dinner.

Mr. BAINES thinks that "organic change" may be spared by revolutionary proceedings. "Such scenes," means a repetition of the interregnum of 1832. The constitution of the House of Lords is to be held sacred; but the Lords themselves may be frightened into compatibility with a Reformed House of Commons, by means of political unions, meetings of two hundred thousand people at Newhall Hill, a great display of popular auger and physical force, and a run upon the Bank. The cry of "To stop the Duke, go for gold !" is to be revived, with that slight alteration which is re- quired by the somewhat different purpose. "Gather the Unions: and, to beat Lveneuesr, go for gold!" this is Mr. BAINES'S' proposal. "Such metes," certainly, would net be very pleasant "every day;" but, according to the plan of Mr. BAINES, they would be necessary every time the Lords should think fit to disagree with the Commons. Sober-minded people, one should think, would prefer sufficient "organic change" once for all.

Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, like Mr. BAINES, objects to ever SO little "organic change" in the House of Lords ; but, differing here from Mr. BAINES, he is, like his Majesty's Ministers, with- out any plan for overcoming "the difficulties in which the Govern- ment is placed: Speaking of the last session of Parliament, he admits that "bills went up from the House of Commons, framed with the greatest care by Committees, which passed the great ordeal of that Houz.c, but which were either mangled and rejected, or left for ever to slumber in peace, in the House of Lords;' he allows that, in the words of Mr. Hurr, "the Lords have brought Reform legislation to a dead stand ;" but then, "he cannot depart from those early lessons he has learnt," amongst which is one in favour of the Lords as they are. Because, about two thou- sand years ago, a certain Roman aristocrat wrote a sentence,

merely not unfavourable to the aristocratic principle, this York- shire baronet declares that " he must oppose any attempt to intro- duce election (that is, responsibility) into the House of Lords." The sentiment is worthy of its source—the " early lessons" of a schoolboy. Sir CICERO STRICKLAND appears to be one of those "mere Whigs" who will become Tories in the inevitable progress of events. But, however obscure the man, the state of his mind deserves the observation we have bestowed on it, as showing the tendency of a class—the class of "mere Whigs "—to join the Tories, rather than take part in giving to the country the natural and necessary consequences of Parliamentary Reform. The Ministerial Courier has propounded a plan for reforming the Lords, which differs from that of Mr. BAINES, inasmuch as it is not at all revolutionary- " It will be seen by our account of the dinner at Leeds given to the Liberal Members for the West Riding of Yorkshire, that both Sir George Strickland and Mr. Baines expressed themselves strongly against a reform of the House of Lords. It must therefore be inferred,. that a great portion of the English people are yet averse from entertaining that question ; and any Ministers who were to make a measure of policy, whether it be justice to Ireland, their own resignation, or any other question, contingent on first obtaining a reform of the House of Peers, would at present be defeated. When Me People hare sent to the House of Commons a large number of Representatives determined to obtain that reform, or when they hare expressed their opinions very strongly by the constitutional method of petitioning, Ministers will, no doubt, be ready to do their public duty and give effect to the national will."

Passing by the very questionable inference, that Mr. BAINES and Sir CICERO STRICKLAND fairly represent " a great portion of the English people," we have to express, though not without sonic qualification, our agreement with the Courier. When that shall happen which our contemporay supposes, some Ministers assuredly will be the instruments for giving effect to the national will. But, in the mean time, what becomes of the present Minis- ters ? If the Courier mean Ministers in the abstract, he has our entire assent ; but if he speak of the MELBOURNE Cabinet, we would refer him to the question which we discussed last week- " Why do not the masses agitate for Peerage Reform?" The present Ministers, let us repeat, stand before the country as being opposed to any the slightest Reform of the House of Lords,— which HOUSC they, agreeing with Sir CICERO STRICKLAND, de.. dare to be " coequal and coordinate " with the House of Com- mons. The Ministers who are to " give effect to the national will " on the question of Peerage Reform, must be themselves anti-Ciceronian : the lessons which are to be their guide, whether early or late lessons, must be widely different from those which have formed the political mind, such as it is, of our Yorkshire Baronet. There will be no general agitation for Peerage Reform, whethef " constitutional " as the Courier proposes, or with "such scenes," according to the plan of Mr. BAINES, until these Minis-

ters either depart into obscurity, or declare their readiness to lead the Reforming masses. The Whig-Radical union must either be dissolved or revived, before the coentry will petition according to

the Courier, or threaten according to Mr. BAINES, for Peerage Reform. At the latest, the beginning of next session will deter-

mine what becomes of the 1Vhig-Radical union ; and it may then be useful—at present it is idle—to inquire who will be the Minis- ters to give effect to the national will on the subject of Peerage Reform.

On this subject our friend the Examiner differs from everbody,— from Mr. RICE and Lord JOHN RUSSELL, from Mr. BAI NES and Sir CICERO STRICKLAND, from the Courier and also from ourselves ; though, in one respect, as will be seen presently, he agrees with the Ministerial Courier.

TIIE QUESTION OF QUESTIONS.

" A letter on the past session, and the necessity for Peerage Reform, which Mr. Ilutt, the Member for Hull, has addressed to his constituents, has been the subject of much observation. The character of the writer and the ability of the exposition alike entitle it to the attention with which it has been received. Perfectly agreeing with Mr. Hutt as to the main conclusion arid the main ob- joet, we yet, however, do not concur in all his views. To begin with a minor difference—it seems that he would have preferred another such session as that of 1835, in which the Lords temporized, to the past session, in which they have done every thing to make the People distinctly understand that their irrespon- sible power is incompatible with good government. Now we avow that we are glad to come as soon as possible to issue on the question which is thus forced lipon the country, whether it shall renounce good government, or the eakting constitution of the House of Peers; and we cannot look back with any regret at the course of factious insanity which has, in so short a time, driven things to this brief alternative. Nothing can be more undisguised than the nature of the contest—the wrong is quite naked. Under the black flag of Lord Lynd. burst, the Peels are now stripped for a decisive battle with Reform. "Mr. Ilutt observes—' Though the Lords rejected many of our bills in 1835, still that session was by no means lost. But what have we to show this year as the result of our labours from January to September, except the Tithe Bill, in which the selfish interests of the Tories prevailed over their destructive pas- sions? '

" IF hat we have to show this year is precisely the ground for the convi 7t ction which is shown in Mr. Ilutt's letter, that without a reform of the Lords just and wise government cannot be had. ' The session of 1835,' observes Mr. that, was by no means lost ; ' and by that session the Lords were by no means lost. The loss to the country of desired legislation, and the loss of the Lords, must proceed in equal proportions ; and it is idle to regret the one event and rejoice at the other, for they are necessarily concomitant. Mr. Hutt himself very forcibly states the progress which the question of Peerage Reform has made within the last few months: and by what has that progress been made, but the abundant evidence of the rice of the Lords in the rejection of every measure promotive in any degree of popular interests? Two or three hundred irresponsible legislators have deliberately acted on the principle of putting nearly a third of the empire, seven millions of people, under ban, out of the pale of justice, as strangers in blood, feelings, and language. But this is not all : the wrong has not been confined to one nation ; justice has been denied to Ireland, and improvement has been arrested in England and Scotland. A blank has thus been caused in legislation ; but it is a blank which will be filled up with judgment on the obstructive instittdion. We repeat, that looking to ultimate remedies we see !othing to regret in the course of things. The Ministry has done enough to bring the Lords to the teat: had it possessed any power by which It could have induced the Lords to suppress their propensities to mischief, some present inconveniences would have been avoided ; but then, the exposure would have been wanting of the radical vice in the Constitution, without the rel'orm of which the legislative machinery vannot work permanently and steadily in accordance with its just objects." Well may the Examiner call Peerage Reform "the question of questions." There is no sacrifice, he thinks, which we ought not to make cheerfully for the sake of Peerage Reform. Nothing

is a loss—every thing is a gain, which leads to the Reform of the Lords. That " mangling " of good measures by the Lords, which

Sir CICERO STRICKLAND regrets, but would not prevent in future, is no evil, according to the Examiner—no loss, but all gain, because it tends to the ruin of the Lords. It is a sad pity that

the Lords allowed the English Municipal Reform Bill to pass in

1835; much to he regretted that they did not reject the Stamp- act this year, and every other measure which promises benefit to

the country ; greatly to be hoped that they will outdo themselves next session by stopping even the common routine of legislation. When we carry measures of Reform through the House of Lords, it is a lost session : when all such measures are rejected by the Lords, then we are to rejoice over our gains. In a word, Peerage Reform is the end of ends, as well as the question 9f questions. Time is of no consequence. Give the Lords time, and they will reform themselves. Never mind the state of Ireland ; a fig for the evils of Irish Tithes and Orange Corporations; be patient ; be more, take delight in bearing present evil for the sake of the good end; be of long-enough-suffering ; court difficulties and troubles; invite insults; nay, if the tyranny of the Lords should become in- tolerable, incur rebellion, civil war, and anarchy,—and all in order to satisfy yourselves that the Lords ought to be reformed.

" When," continues the Examiner," the conviction is sufficiently general, and sufficiently manifested, that beneficial legislation

cannot proceed without an alteration in the constitution of the House of Lords, the Ministry will either be found to share in the common conviction, or it must give way to men of more advanced opinions." But here again we ask—what is to become of

"the Ministry" in the mean time? The Peerage Reform ques- tion must break up the Whig-Radical union, if "the Ministers"

continue to disagree with the Reformers on this question of ques- tions. Are we to submit, rejoicing, to a Tory government also, with a view to the "sufficiently general conviction" that the Lords ought to be reformed? "The Ministers" being, as the

Examiner said not long ago, "Whigs and not Radicals," and continuing adverse to Peerage Reform, their small majority in

the House of Commons cannot but dwindle into a minority. In

that case, (and here the Examiner agrees with the Courier in de- precating any pressure upon Ministers for a declaration in favour

of Peerage Reform,) the Tories come into power. This has been

Lord LYNDHURST'S aim in forcing upon the country, and upon Ministers, the question of Peerage Reform. If the Tories come

into power through a dissolution of the Whig-Radical union, the Whigs will be extinct, the people will be without leaders, and the Tories may obtain a permanent majority in the House of Com- mons. What will then be the state of the question of questions ?

The Ministerial papers (including the Examiner, so far as the continuance of a merely Whig Ministry squares with his views,)

seem entirely to overlook the danger, at which we have pointed

for some time past, of a Tory majority of the House of Commons as the result of Whig supineness and consequent Whig-Radical

disunion. For ourselves, we do not look to Peerage Reform as

an end.: if our sole aim—good legislative measures—were attain- able without Peerage Reform, we should gladly leave that ques-

tion to the very few bigoted Republicans who exist in this coun- try. As it is, seeing that the Tories have made Peerage Reform a practical question, we cannot imagine how "the Ministers" will avoid taking a part either for or against the present consti- tution of the House of Lords. The Tories insist that all men shall be either Tories or Peerage Reformers. We still hope and

trust, whatever may happen to Mr. RICE. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and SIT CICERO STRICKLAND, that Lord MELBOURNE Will IRA become a Tory.